If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well, from the actual bill, it doesn't say "bad" sites. And it looks like the "blacklist" would only be for domains which are not domestically owned, as the domestic sites I imagine would be served with take downs.

The definition of "bad" in this case

‘(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--

‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or

‘(2) is--

‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

‘(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.

Comment

I sure hope not, do you have any idea how much people, especially the women, suffer from this industry, suicide, disease, drug abuse that leads to death, alcohol abuse that leads to death, rape, kidnapping, forced prostitution and the list goes.

Comment

Such blacklists have been introduced in several European countries in order to combat child pornography.

Leaks have shown that they were being used to censor political content, and regular citizens are typically not allowed to know what is actually being blocked. They didn't help with child pornography, at least according to the police.

Comment

Such blacklists have been introduced in several European countries in order to combat child pornography.

Leaks have shown that they were being used to censor political content, and regular citizens are typically not allowed to know what is actually being blocked. They didn't help with child pornography, at least according to the police.

That really depends on the country and how they frame such laws. The burden here in Ireland on WHO to blacklist lies with the ISPs (if they black list anyone, the legistlation just says they have to take reasonable measures).

Not surprisingly, this has created a niche market selling access to RBLs for different purposes for institututions.

Comment

Such blacklists have been introduced in several European countries in order to combat child pornography.

Leaks have shown that they were being used to censor political content, and regular citizens are typically not allowed to know what is actually being blocked. They didn't help with child pornography, at least according to the police.

This has also happened over and over with private solutions like WebSense and the various client-based filters like Net Nanny. Incompetence and/or malice end up getting sites misfiled on a regular basis.

A practical problem with the bill is that it's going to be pretty toothless for targeting noncommercial "underground" sites. People who really want to access sites "dedicated to infringing activities" could find other ways to look them up (alternative DNS roots, hosts file distribution, networks like Freenet that implement their own namespaces, etc.).

Comment

... this is all about DOMAIN filtering, NOT *IP* filtering.... which means that all you need to do is set up your own DNS that goes to root, or use a foreign DNS. This bill has NO teeth and will NOT do anything to block people who really want this "illegal content". This is just an exercise in burning money, nothing more.

Comment

This isn't even about child porn. That's just the excuse they're using to build an Orwellian control network (albeit poorly). Expect political censoring, and political persecutions... which they're already doing against anyone who speaks out against US government policies.

Sometimes I think that the terrorists are right. They may be going about it in a totally wrong way (and for all the wrong reasons), but the US government *IS EVIL*.

In fact, I wonder if they really are going about it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons... or is that just what the government WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE?

Child porn is small stuff compared to waging war against freedom itself.